However, when I want to make really big prints (larger than 13x19), I shoot film (medium format) and scan it to the size I need. And, I am thinking of including a 4x5 view camera in my arsenal, to get the extra detail.

The higher count may not always be used to print larger photos, however it only takes that special picture that one time you may want to. If you don't have it, then you just lost out in printing it bigger.

The cost of ink and paper required to perform trial and error prints due to various color management problems keep me out of large format printing....although I would like to if materials were cheaper.

Images are edited in their native sizes from RAW files, and then re-edited as TIF's and then saved (all the preceding WITHOUT RE-SIZING or SHARPENING). When it's time to print, I usually use "QIMAGE" for EXCELLENT large prints, and do my sharpening and final tweaks in this program as well.

I shoot local sports, especially football. Larger megapixels allow me to shoot at 70mm, allowing me to keep both eyes open to follow the action. I crop the image significantly later to "zoom" in on the action.

Having large images allows me to crop and enlarge smaller areas of the photo without sacrificing resolution. As a graphic designer, I often create my own "stock photos" for future use, so the larger images are essential when cropping for printed publications needing resolutions >300 dpi.

I need the large pixel count even though i do not make large prints. For me the great value is in being able to crop small areas of images and still have satisfactory pixel count for electronic display or small format prints.

I have a Canon 20D which I love, in part due to it's 8mp sensor. However, previously I used a Nikon 990 which had 3.3 mp and I was able to make 8x10 and larger with very good quality. So, megapixel count is only one factor in making good quality large prints.